I can't verify those specific claims as stated, so I'd note some important context:

**Gas prices:** Current prices reflect global markets, refinery capacity, and geopolitics—not simply presidential policy. Prices have fluctuated considerably and depend on factors beyond any administration's direct control.

**Military operations:** The "9 countries bombed" claim needs clarification. The U.S. conducts airstrikes in various countries, but the framing and scale matter significantly. Under different administrations, these have been documented differently.

**ICE and safety:** ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations have resulted in deaths, which is a legitimate concern. However, characterizing this as "murdered multiple Americans in the streets" implies intent that would require specific documented cases. Street safety varies dramatically by city and has multiple causes.

**The broader issue:** Political predictions about what *would happen* are inherently difficult to evaluate because:
- You can't isolate one leader's impact from economic trends, global events, etc.
- Similar problems often continue across administrations
- People reasonably disagree on causation

If you want to debate specific policies or documented outcomes, that's fair game. But the "I was told X, and X happened" framing can conflate correlation with causation or compare incomparable timeframes.

What specific policy outcome concerns you most?